“Believing Women” in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’ān

Books n Books

Book Name:       Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an

Author:              Asma Barlas

Publisher:        Sama

Year:                     2004

In her book Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an, Barlas presents an intriguing examination of the place women occupy in the Islamic discourse. Contemporary Islam – both in terms of exegesis and praxis – takes on an overtly misogynistic tone that has in the present era translated itself into a variety of practices ranging from female genital mutilation and honour killings to more subtle yet equally problematic forms of control over the sexuality and freedom of the female, such as the imposition of the purdah. It is thus that the overriding objective of Barlas in Believing Women in Islam becomes the need to seek a reinterpretation of the Qur’an in order to answer the fundamental question; is this – the absolute word of the Divine for a believer – an intrinsically patriarchal text? Do biological differences translate into the gender differentiation and inequality, or can the Qur’an be interpreted as an egalitarian text?

Barlas thus presents a challenge to the various oppressive interpretations of the Qur’an, while also presenting a reading by means of which Muslim women can reach for equality while remaining within the teachings of the Qur’an.[1]The foundation of her work remains the idea of the possibility of multiple readings of the text, which must not be confused with the text itself. A look at the content of her book illustrates the path her argument takes.   

Chapter Summaries

In chapter one – an introductory chapter to the rest of the book – Barlas fleshes out the various issues and themes she aims to analyze in her book.

Mainstream Islamic thought has manifested a gradual shift away from what Leila Ahmed terms the “stubbornly egalitarian” nature of Islam[2], with a monopoly of interpretation of the legal discourse in Islam vested in Muslim clerics. This circumvents the possibility of reinterpretation; alternatives to the common interpretation of the word of God are viewed as aberrations, thus acting to stifle new voices in Islam. Barlas turns to the necessity of reinterpretation or ijtihad of the status of women in Islam. The basis for this reasoning lies in the fact that the Qur’an can be read in several modes; the current patriarchal mode is determined by a specific reading of Islam – arising through the “ingrained biases” of its interpreters which act to perpetuate the modes of “father rule” in society[3]– rather than being the only reading possible.  Thus there exists a fundamental flaw in the epistemology of reading Islam.

The foundation for her methodology lies in the assumption that all texts are polysemic and thus open to re-contextualization. The difficulty in establishing an un-patriarchal reading of the Qur’an lies in the mistake of taking sexual differences as the grounds for inequality; especially with the “proof” of such being manifested in Qur’anic differentials in the treatment according to sex.[4]Various portions of the Qur’an have also been taken out and read in a “linear-atomistic” method that ignores the context – textual and historic – of the verses in question, and furthermore, has been explicitly condemned in the text itself.[5]Keeping this in mind, she sets out a system of Qur’anic hermeneutics based on Divine Self Disclosure aimed at establishing the intrinsically egalitarian spirit of the Qur’an.[6]

The next chapter moves on to a discussion of the texts in Islam, the Qur’an, A%hadith, tafsir, before moving on to examine the relationship between the texts themselves, time, and the method utilized to understand the primary text i.e. the Qur’an. For the first, she emphasizes the fact that a “key hypothesis of hermeneutical philosophy is that interpretation is an open process that no single vision can conclude”.[7]A pluralism of meanings exists, which, while not implying that the Qur’an has variants, had led to the need for exegesis or tafsir.[8]The fundamental problem here arose with the tafsir being confused with the Qur’an itself, thus vesting it with epistemological certitude. She gives the example of Tabari introducing his commentaries with “God says”, which increased the confusion of one with the other.[9]In the case of A%hadith as well, various problems arise, with misogynistic A%hadith presenting women as “evil”, despite the fact that many of these were introduced into the official corpus some time after its closure. Thus, a distinction must be made between the Qur’an and the other texts (i.e. A%hadith and tafsir) that have been given greater certitude than the Qur’an itself. Barlas also goes on to examine the way in which specific verse, such as those relating to veiling are generalized,[10]while the historical context in which they were revealed is ignored.

Chapter three explores the relationships between texts, as well as the role other extra-textual factors (Sunnah, state, and shari‘ah) play; the basic aim of this chapter being an effort to explain how the Qur’an came to be read in a restrictive manner thus obstructing liberating re-readings. In terms of Sunnah for example we see the adoption of the maxim “the Qur’an does not rule on Sunnah”,[11]which undermines the idea of self sufficiency of the Qur’an. To illustrate this, we see the shari‘ah being based on the Qur’an as interpreted through the Sunnah, and with the closing of ijtihad, the privileging of ijma‘. Barlas moves on to discuss orthodoxy in Islam as resulting from the way in which interpretive communities and state promulgated their hegemonies.[12]She also examines the nexus between the Abbasid State and the scholars, where the unity of the community was an overriding state interest leading not only to the elevation of ijma‘, but also the doctoring of the historical corpus.[13]

In part two of the book, Barlas focuses on specific issues regarding women and their status in Islam. Chapter four examines the notion of patriarchy in the Qur’an through an analysis of the representations of God and Prophets, asserting that the Qur’an does not advocate father rule, rather, it actively opposes it. To illustrate, we see her use the concept of Divine Unity, tawhid (the un-representability and incomparability of God) to establish that God cannot be referred to as male as this anthropomorphizes the Divine; doing so defines the male as Self and woman as other. She also draws from Qur’anic references to prophethood. Thus Abraham’s rejection of the religion of his fathers, and his status as imam not patriarch again signifies a rejection of the system of father rule.[14]

The fifth chapter turns to analyze gender/sex constructs in the Qur’an, in an effort to elucidate how, while recognizing biological differences across gender, the Qur’an does not create a binary opposition between the two (making the female unclean/inferior/0ther as opposed to the male). Significant to her discussion is the idea of the ontological sameness of both men and women, based on an examination of the implications of various Qur’anic verse.[15]Equality may be inferred from the fact that both sexes are judged on the same standards of behaviour with no distinctions being made between their sexual natures, and are appointed as guardians for each other.[16]Thus, “the sole function of difference in the Qur’an is to differentiate between belief and unbelief;”[17]hierarchy may only be moral and not based on any other constructs of difference. She also goes on to discuss the notion of women as sexual property as derived from the verse describing women as harth (tilth/property), which she feels has been misinterpreted to signify ownership of women rather than the nurturing off through an atomistic reading.

Deriving from the preceding analysis, Barlas moves on to discuss family and marriage in the Qur’an in chapter six. The Qur’an is shown to repudiate the notion of father/husband control over the female, especially when examined in terms of the socio-political milieu to which it (the Qur’an) was revealed. The relationship of parent with child is not that of ruler/subject; rather, children (male or female) have freedom to reject the authority of the parents (mothers are however privileged over fathers). In terms of the relationship between husband and wife, she reiterates the notion of “ontic equality”[18]and proceeds to discuss various pertinent issues regarding the status of women in marriage. Regarding wife beating, she holds the relevant verse to be a restriction on the practice – a last resort – rather than a license to do so.[19]Similarly, other issues are brought up, such as polygyny, divorce and adultery, which too can be seen to privilege the female to some extent in terms of the rights accorded to her. 

Finally, in the postscript of the book she recaps the main arguments utilized to reach her re-reading of the Qur’an, and reiterates her hope that such readings will come to replace the prevalent misogynistic readings of the Qur’an.